PETA shoots self in foot again.

RandFan

Mormon Atheist
RandFan
Joined
Dec 18, 2001
Messages
60,135
It's always nice to have someone or something to despise. I despise PETA. Thanks PETA for continuing to make me think my opinion of you is correct.

PETA Campaign Enrages Jewish Group

SAN DIEGO — An animal-rights campaign comparing the suffering of livestock to that of Holocaust victims is drawing sharp criticism from a leading Jewish group for "trivializing" the mass murder of Jews.

"The Holocaust on Your Plate" campaign by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals debuted this week in California and will make a national tour.

The display is a set of eight 6-foot-by-10-foot panels showing photographs of Holocaust victims -- emaciated men, crowds of people being forced onto trains, children behind barbed wire, heaps of human bodies -- set next to similar images of cattle, pigs and chickens.

The Anti-Defamation League denounced the project and PETA's appeal for support from the Jewish community as "outrageous, offensive and taking chutzpah to new heights."
Click to expand...
"The answer to bad speech is more speech"

Sometimes the bad speech speaks against itself. I think this is one of those times.
 
I hope that this will wake people up and start a movement of good sane folks to speak up against this cultish menace.
 
PETA shoots self in foot again

Don't you just wish they'd shoot themselves in the head and put us out of our misery.
 
I wish I had a poster I saw of a large PETA demonstation with the banner:

This Protest Made Possible by Animal Research

--J.D.
 
Hey y'all. Be good to PETA. I'm a member. Lifelong.

People for Eating Tasty Animals.


lol
 
Please keep the PETA posts coming.

It amazes me that their absurd tactics even leave me speechless which is no small feat.

Well, not completely speechless, hehe.

Even if one agreed with their principles to the extreme degree that they do, how could anyone with an ounce of logic possibly believe that this would be an effective form of persuasion.

Their own actions show how clearly the are out of touch with reality far more succinctly than any oppositions criticism could ever hope to achieve.

I am all for the enforcement of existing laws against animal cruelty. Any specific cases they may cite would be in violation of existing laws and they are most certainly the isolated minority and not the norm. Bringing to the attention of any local authority any specific act of cruelty would be far more effective that a poorly conceived ad campaign.

But of course it is not the individual acts they are interested in. They want a ban on all consumption of animal products. I would very much like to hear what they think should be done with existing livestock that has been bred for thousands of years to be domesticated. Set you cows free to starve to death and die by the millions in the jaws of predators? Yeah, that would be real humane.
 
Blue Monk said:
I would very much like to hear what they think should be done with existing livestock that has been bred for thousands of years to be domesticated. Set you cows free to starve to death and die by the millions in the jaws of predators? Yeah, that would be real humane.
Click to expand...
My wife asked a co-worker that very question, the response, "yes, they would suffer and die but at least they would die naturally."

Well yeah, that makes all the difference.
 
A poster, eh. I don't know how many times I have to say this. Photographic film emulsion is mostly gelatin. Gelatin is an animal product.

PETA should avoid any photography if they won't use animal products. I'm pretty sure that photos of halocaust victims weren't shot with digital cameras.

They should avoid newspaper and magazine ads as well. Offset printing uses film in the process.

Pretty hard to avoid the use of animal products in the modern world.
 
jimlintott said:
A poster, eh. I don't know how many times I have to say this. Photographic film emulsion is mostly gelatin. Gelatin is an animal product.

PETA should avoid any photography if they won't use animal products. I'm pretty sure that photos of halocaust victims weren't shot with digital cameras.

They should avoid newspaper and magazine ads as well. Offset printing uses film in the process.

Pretty hard to avoid the use of animal products in the modern world.
Click to expand...

Hey Jim, great post!

I'm sorry you've had to repeat yourself but I'm glad you did because I have never thought of this.

I wonder if Pamela Anderson knows this. Without photography she'd have to go back to the Dairy Queen, hehe.

Opps, that's right, no dairy.
 
So why don' t the PETA people let us use THEIR byproducts to make gelatin, and test possible harmful shampoos and drugs on them?

These animal treatment people would rather firebomb a lab than walk in and volunteer to be tested on, which I tHink makes them hipocrites.(ok, I know this is an overgeneralization of animal rights, but I'm too tired to differentiate between them all)
 
Kilted_Canuck said:
ok, I know this is an overgeneralization of animal rights, but I'm too tired to differentiate between them all
Click to expand...

Yes, it is an overgeneralization, and a silly one.

In modern days, it doesn't make sense to continue to test cosmetics and such in animals, because it is usually an almost sadistic way of doing things, and there are alternatives.

Please note that I'm not talking about all animal testing, but the ones for which alternative ways of testing can be found.

Of course, when we're talking about raising animals for fur, meat, dairy or whatever, I have no problem with that. Of course I prefer to buy (whenever I can get the information), from the producers that give the best living conditions to their animals. It's the old "wallet democracy" thing. That and, of course, a happy cow makes a tastier steak.


Cheers
 
Just a little interesting factoid: [Interesting to whom?--Ed.]

When I were a lad I was in Bristol and witnessed a discussion given by the Home Secretary for The Security of Like Lots of Titles because British Like Titles and Protect the Animals in which he described regulation of animal testing.

Naturally, the Dray test--testing cosmetics in the eyes of particularly cute bunnies--came up.

There is really no alternative; however, he asked if anyone knew the "failure rate"--how many blind bunnies on the dole?

Basically, very little. "Cosmetic companies DO NOT want to waste the time and money designing a product that can harm someone, particularly blind them!"

--J.D.
 
Another project which probably started out with the best of intentions and carried itself to extremes. (Extremes are almost always bad.) To my knowledge, not one of them has answered the questions about what they would do if they found their houses (or offices) being over-run by rats--or even cockroaches. And, if I am concerned with the ethical treatment of animals, what am I to feed my dog?

As I write this, my lunch is being prepared. It consists of a particularly wonderful-smelling pork roast, buttered Brussells sprouts (BUTTER, not oleo,) and my world famous potato salad which is, of course, all vegetable except for the mayonaise in the dressing which does contain eggs. (Mess with me and I'll chop up some ham and put in it.) I shall eat this repast with absolutely no feelings of guilt.
 
So with this "I don't care" mind-set, any two things you don't care about are ethically equal. I don't care that I farted, therefore it's a holocaust.


It's time we sent PETA members on a one-way "human shield" vacation (to protect the camels of Iraq... not the meat-eating civilians).
 
Wonder if PETA will protest this:
Dog joins human shields in Iraq
By David Blair in Baghdad
(Filed: 15/02/2003)
Possibly the first canine peace activist in the history of international pacifism rolled on his back, waved his legs in the air and panted happily.
Gustavo, a St Bernard, is the only member of the animal kingdom to have joined the ranks of the "human shields in Iraq".
He arrived in Baghdad after an overland journey from Rome at the heels of his owner, Juliana Tucci, an Italian grandmother.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/mai...requestid=29702

I think its outrageous. The poor animal is not there by choice.
 
PETA has many good points, but they bring them up mostly in absurd ways.
 
Whodini said:
PETA has many good points, but they bring them up mostly in absurd ways.
Click to expand...
Their only good points are shared by all reasonable animal welfare oriented people, and don't outweigh their unreasonable positions on research and the right to have pets, for example.
They hide their extreme positions behind a smokescreen.
In fact its impossible to find their complete agenda on their website.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom